Talk:2021

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021 (Result: not done)

Turns out that at least two of the people making the same argument were in reality just a single person.

Add Bob Dole to deaths in 2021 (Dec 5). Add John Madden, Harry Reid to deaths in 2021 (Dec 28). The ganymedian (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)  Not done As the edit summaries & talk page state, Dole is excluded due to being of insufficient international notability; Madden & Reid for having no international notability. All are on 2021 deaths in the United States. Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Just because you don't personally know the notableness of Bob Dole on an international scale doesn't mean he's not internationally notable. - User: CountingStars500 I'm split between the Jim Michael/TheScrubby viewpoint versus the CountingStars500 viewpoint. I agree with Jim Michael/TheScrubby in regards to the point of there clearly being more notable people than Bob Dole (but they both tend to ignore the reasons of Dole's notableness, I suggest they look into him more). I agree with CountingStars500 in regards to the lack of consistency of those included being deemed notable while they are not. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)  Not done Absolutely not for any of these figures - why else do we have 2021 in the United States? TheScrubby (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Does Betty White have enough notability to have her picture up? (Result: photo excluded)

1. We have already established that she is notable enough to be included on the main list.

2. However, there seems to be a slight division on wheter or not she's notable to have her picture included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:B4A9:309F:7648:28B0 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m not against the idea of having White’s image up per se. But I strongly believe that there ought to be at least one head of government image for December, and that the fourth (and final) image should go to Mustafa Ben Halim. We already have an image of a significant entertainment figure with Vicente Fernández in any case. TheScrubby (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Photos of 4 people from very different fields makes sense: a politician, Mustafa Ben Halim; an entertainer, Vicente Fernández; a religious figure, Desmond Tutu & a scientist, E. O. Wilson. White has very little international notability, so it's doubtful that she should be included, let alone have a photo. Jim Michael (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed per @TheScrubby: and @Jim Michael: with the idea of having a politician, entertainer, religious figure and scientist image. But can I move the discussion towards replacing Mustafa Ben Halim's image with Kåre Willoch's? Willoch was PM of Norway for 5 years vs. Ben Halim's 3 year tenure. From the looks of it Willoch's entire political career is also longer than Halim's which also totaled to 3 years. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Halim had a bigger effect on Libya than Willoch did on Norway. Jim Michael (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I’d like to jump in and say I’m from the UK.. so White isn’t a native over here and her photos and story was blanketed over the news last night even on New Years Eve, newspapers have dedicated front pages, Twitter is exploding, she was the 2nd highest trend in the UK under #HappyNewYear for a good few hours yesterday. Trust me she’s very internationally notable and should require a photo. And that’s coming from a 25 year old English man. Bradonwiki (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

She’s probably one of the most loved and most recognisable people in the world. Bradonwiki (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• A quick search and Betty White does have more international obits than Vicente Fernández. That does show international nobility so we could swap White for Fernandez to fill in the "significant entertainment figure" @Jim Michael: was discussing about. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

White had a longer career & was more famous than Fernández. Media coverage is indicative of her fame. She has very little international notability; what she has is many fans in many countries. Fernández's popularity & notability appears to be mostly in Mexico & the US, so it's difficult to decide which should have a photo. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: Since it appears its a tossup, I'm more leaning towards White because I see more global coverage of her passing it'd be nice to have a woman's pic in a mostly male pic death section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

As long as it's one of them rather than both, I don't have a preference. Jim Michael (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I would lean towards retaining the Fernández image given that he’s a more significant cultural figure in the Spanish speaking world, whereas White, though internationally notable, is significant primarily in one country. But yeah, generally speaking I don’t mind so long as it’s one and not both of them. TheScrubby (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I've seen that this debate was opened earlier. To say that Fernández is popular almost exclusively in Mexico and the USA is reckless, as his popularity expands to all Hispanic countries, as TheScrubby says. At the same time that translates into the number of awards he has won (more than White). Personally, and although I support the idea of "politician, entertainer, religious figure and scientist", I think that in this case it should be both who have photos. Both are "icons" in their fields: one in music, the other in television and cinema. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Television Icon, Betty White passed away December 31st aged 99. As well as being the first woman to exhert control infront of and behind the camera, she was the first woman to produce a tv show, hosted black musicians on her show when it was unpopular to do so, had a NINE decade career starting in 1930, was one of the oldest living members of The Academy and among being one of the most loved and recognisable faces in the world.. ITS BETTY WHITE.. both Biden & Obama and even the US Army even tweeted condolences.

My conclusion is that more than most people on this list, the December section of deaths requires a photo of Betty White. I don’t think anyone will be against that. Bradonwiki (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Bradonwiki: Please refer to the ongoing discussion under "Does Betty White have enough notability to have her picture up?" section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

That Biden, Obama and the US Army have tweeted their condolences is honestly insignificant and irrelevant. And I think you should take TDKR Chicago's advice. But yes, I think she should have a photo, as she has some international popularity and is easily recognizable. But I don't know if Ben Halim or Wilson's photo would have to drop, both are very relevant, but not as relevant as Tutu and Fernández, in my opinion. And it's always important to try to be gender-balanced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Guys there seems to be space for a fifth photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.233.79.128 (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

_-_Alsoriano97 is right about gender balance, but there are some December entries that will possibly come out after discussion above. Deb (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Deb: and @Alsoriano97:, from what Jim Michael said I agreed that there should be a variety of occupations for pictures such as from what he said "Photos of 4 people from very different fields makes sense: a politician, Mustafa Ben Halim; an entertainer, Vicente Fernández; a religious figure, Desmond Tutu & a scientist, E. O. Wilson". That being said I also mentioned above about there should be more pics of women which is why I'm more leaning towards replacing Vicente Fernandez's photo with Betty White's (they're both entertainers therefore would fill out that slot). Wilson is a significant figure as he merits his photo for inclusion and Ben Halim is a former head of government so that also merits inclusion. I would say use a smaller pic of Tutu so that a smaller pic of White can be included but per the argument above, there seems to be an agreement that two entertainers should not have their pics as its an unbalance (hypothetically that new image space could have been used for another politician such as Kåre Willoch or Nobel winner Robert H. Grubbs) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No issue w. Grubbs, though I should point out that we already have an image of a Nobel winner for December, which of course is Tutu. TheScrubby (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: I’m not agree with what you say. That is to say, in the hypothetical case that in the same month Jimmy Carter and Berlusconi died, it would make sense that this "rule" would not be fulfilled and both could have a photo. Keeping Fernández would also maintain a plurality of races (I don’t want to sound racist, I am not at all) because the representation of Latin American people (Maturana, Menem) in the photos is quite low compared to Arab or African people (Keita, Magufuli, El Saadawi, Ratsiraka, Déby, Jugnauth, Kaunda, Habré, Bouteflika, Banisadr, Ben Halim and Tutu), so the substitution of Ben Halim by White, in this sense, would not seem dramatic. I do not want to be misunderstood. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Alsoriano97: Of course that would be a different case if Carter and Berlusconi died. Whereas we're talking about the now and not a hypothetical tomorrow. The consensus from the argument above which I agree with is having a variety of professions being pictured (i.e. politician, entertainer, scientist and religious figure) each filled out by Ben Halim, Fernandez, Wilson and Tutu at the moment. If we look at the rest of 2021 deaths pictures, there's already a variety of races covered but a lack of women. That's my main argument and also Ben Halim had a significant impact in Libya as his role of head of government. We should look more into an individual's impact as well when assessing adding their pics. That's why I'm in favor of swapping Fernandez with White currently. P.S. you're not being misunderstood and I do see your argument :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Pinging @Jim Michael: and @TheScrubby: for their thoughts. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I’ve already expressed my view on the previous thread to do with this, but I think that, although we should keep gender in mind when we can, I support retaining Fernández’s image over White’s, and that Fernández is a more internationally significant cultural/entertainment figure (particularly in the Spanish speaking world) than White, whose significance was primarily in the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

With the comparison I want to tell you that, having two majorr entertainment icons, both should have their pic included. That is why this month this rule would not be fulfilled. I would advocate substituting Ben Halim for White, and we would add a woman in a very masculinized month. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As Prime Minister, under the reign of Idris I, did he have executive powers or did he act as "royal advisor"? I can't really find the answer. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

From what I can gather Libya pre-Gaddafi was a constitutional monarchy with the monarch as head of state and a Prime Minister as head of government; so yes he did have executive powers. In any case, if anything we would substitute Ben Halim with Kåre Willoch instead of White if say, Ben Halim’s image were to suddenly be removed from Wikipedia due to copyright or whatever other reason. TheScrubby (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to add to the complication, do we actually feel it is necessary to share out the images between the months as we do? Because this seems to be part of the problem. Could we not agree to decide images by the quarter or by the half-year instead? Deb (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There isn't enough space for a fifth image & we should have one each from different fields. In some cases, we'd put 2 of people of the same field in the same section, such as if Clint Eastwood & Jack Nicholson were to die during the same month. However, White is not especially notable - she merely had a particularly long career & fans in many countries. If we no longer had all the photos in their respective month, some would be out of place. Jim Michael (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "out of place". As long as they are still in chronological order, I don't see that it would make a great difference. Deb (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t see any way that there’ll be space for a fifth image; and personally I’m in favour of the status quo where we keep images of figures for the respective months of their deaths - even if in some months, the number of figures included would only have enough space for two images at most. At the very least, I prefer it in terms of aesthetics. Agreed with Jim Michael r.e. White, though I have no issue with her being included on the main list. The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that we have it just right when it comes to December images (Ben Halim, Fernández, Tutu and Wilson - with maybe Kåre Willoch and White as hidden back-ups). TheScrubby (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The only reason for the requests for White is her popularity. She'd struggle to appear on the lower end of a 100 best actresses list. Her international notability is tiny. She merely has many fans in many countries, which hundreds of domestic entertainers also do. Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with that — White was an early figure in the inception of television when the medium itself was still in early development. If you Google, ‘Betty White Television Pioneer’ all the information is there. — the reason for her having so many fans is most likely for limited film career, Guinness world record winning television career and genuinely nice persona, but MY reason for her needing to have a photograph on in the section is all that combined with her being instrumental in the growth of television itself, working on experimental tv shows in the 1930s. Being one of the first women to work both infront of and behind the camera. Being the first woman to produce a sitcom. Honestly look it up. She then dominated the 1970s & 80s with Mary Tyler Moore and the especially The Golden Girls, both of which are greatly popular internationally and even 40 years later, now.

Besides, she has far more notability worldwide than Vicente Fernandez, if you did a poll, you’d get a very clear answer. And finally, yes there is a huge lack of women, and for a woman who has had SO many pioneering achievements, she needs to be recognised duly for it. Bradonwiki (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It could be construed as Americentrism if we were to snub one of the most internationally notable and culturally significant singers and entertainment figures of the Spanish speaking world (which, mind you, is larger than the English speaking world) in favour of a figure who, while internationally notable for many of the reasons you have stated, is mainly significant in one country. How can you possibly back up your claim that White has more international notability than Fernández? Also “genuinely nice persona” is not an argument for inclusion - and certainly not “limited film career” either. TheScrubby (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022 (Result: not done)

Bob Dole - Deaths in 2021 96.20.169.215 (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - See prior debates relating to Dole here. There is no consensus in favour of his inclusion, as a political figure deemed predominately domestic. TheScrubby (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Death images (Result: not done)

Perhaps it is time to consider not using images in the death section, they are only being used for decoration and dont really serve an encyclopedic value. Readers can use the article link if they want to know what the subjects look like. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I think it would be a boring page, already boring in itself. With images the list becomes more visual, aesthetic and dynamic. The debate is always good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with Alsoriano. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as per Alsoriano and TDKR. TheScrubby (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Olympia Dukakis & Norm Macdonald (Result: Dukakis included and Macdonald borderline inclusion)

Mentioned on Talk:2022. Are they internationally notable enough to be included? Jim Michael (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Turns out that at one of the participants of this discussion thread was a banned sockpuppet.

Does anyone truly have "international notability", everyone who dies are domestic figures in the countries they come from. The issue with the "standards" here is people think in a purely black and while, pass or fail mentality. It's a spectrum. It can be argued that both Dukakis and Macdonald are notable and not notable simultaneously. Jim, you yourself admitted to don't cross-reference Wikipedia bios with other sources you say. Liam Davenport (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Some people clearly have substantial international notability. Christopher Plummer, who died in 2021, is a good example. He has a high level of international notability, shown from his long list of awards, several of which are very important. People's notability should be clear from their articles. WP editors can't be expected to spend a long time researching each person to see if they may have more notability than is stated in their WP articles. Do you have an opinion on whether or not to include Dukakis & Macdonald? Jim Michael (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Macdonald should stay, I'm neutral on Dukakis. Liam Davenport (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There was already a discussion on Macdonald here where the consensus was in favour of inclusion (I was and remain personally opposed to his inclusion). Dukakis was an Oscar recipient, and has the sufficient notability for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I asked about Macdonald because he was mentioned multiple times during the discussions about Gilbert Gottfried. Dukakis' awards are all American, so what international notability does she have? Jim Michael (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The consensus is there that we include actors/directors who are Oscar recipients (while those who were nominated but did not win are included on a case-by-case basis, usually depending on whether or not they are also recipients of major international film awards), at least so far as those in the English-speaking world of cinema goes. TheScrubby (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

San Miguel del Ene attack (Result: exclusion)

@Agtx: Kind regards,

Regarding the removal of the San Miguel del Ene attack from the article, the following references can be included:

• "Presunto ataque terrorista deja al menos 18 muertos en la selva central de Perú". EFE (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 24 May 2021. Retrieved 24 May 2021.
• "Asesinadas 18 personas en un posible ataque de Sendero Luminoso". Europa Press. 24 May 2021. Archived from the original on 25 May 2021. Retrieved 24 May 2021.
• El Comercio (24 May 2021). "Vraem: 18 personas fueron asesinadas por miembros de Sendero Luminoso". elcomecio.pe (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 25 May 2021. Retrieved 24 May 2021.

Since you haven't specified a policy on notability, I'm not sure what your concerns about notability related to the article are, but the page has independent and sufficient coverage, meeting WP:GNG. An event were eighteen people were killed is clearly notable, and moreover considering that it took place two weeks before the last presidential elections in Peru.

Even though there's not an essay or agreed format on the years articles, however, I understand that a considered aspect for inclusion is the existance of articles of the subject in other languages, another condition that the attack meets: besides English, there are also articles in the Spanish (es:Atentado de San Miguel del Ene de 2021) and French (fr:Attaque de San Miguel del Ene) Wikipedias, as well as in Simple English. Lastly, I have to stress once again that the article was included in the Front Page when the attack happened. As such, the article should meet the criteria for inclusion.

Pinging also @Dunutubble:, who first included the attack. Happy editing! --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. What we're looking for on this page, however, is an internationally notable event. That means not everything that gets a Wikipedia article or even everything that ends up on the "in the news" section of the front page will belong here. From the sources you cited, I'm not sure that this event is sufficiently notable from an international perspective. Interested in others' perspectives, however. agtx 11:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand your position, although the article's inclusion in ITN has not been my main point; international coverage likewise includes the BBC, The Washington Post and Aljazeera. At any rate, I'd like to know what other editors have to say too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's on 2021 in Peru but should be excluded from 2021 due to it being domestic. There's no internationality to it, other than its media coverage; an attack by a domestic group, as part of a domestic insurgency, against fellow Peruvians. International media coverage & being on ITN don't grant inclusion on main year articles. The 2021 Apure clashes & 2022 Peshawar mosque attack are included because of their substantial internationality. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If the article appeared in the Front Page, I would say there seems to be a general consensus of international notability. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't, because that isn't a requirement for ITN. It says on WP:ITN/C to not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic cases reaching 150 million (Result: exclusion)

There is disagreement as to whether or not confirmed Covid cases passing the 150 million mark on April 29th is a milestone event. Seeking additional input here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't see a case for it being an important milestone. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Collage proposal

I’ve proposed this on other Talk pages within other discussions, though I really should have brought it up here in the first place. I propose that for the collage on top of the page, we replace the January 6 United States Capitol attack image with one from the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. The latter was a far more internationally notable and significant event, which saw 250 people killed and tens of thousands of people displaced. The former barely makes the main yearly page as a borderline inclusion - it was a purely domestic event which was a shambolic, quixotic attempt at a coup that never came close to succeeding, and we already include images of successful coups from 2021 of far greater international notability, such as the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état and the October–November 2021 Sudanese coup d'état. TheScrubby (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Collage depreciation

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Date format

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest. On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s Marginataen (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) It has now been more than a week since I posted my proposal about changing the date format for 2021 to DMY and no one has responded. If one more weeks passes without any response as well, I will consider it consensus and change it to the DMY format. By then, people would have had more than two weeks to respond. Should someone later on object, please discuss it here on the talk page before reverting. Marginataen (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC) I'm pasting the same reply at all the 2020s talk page sections on this topic, with the exception of 2023. As of about a month ago, we had a situation in which all generic year articles had a consistent date format. Since both date styles are considered appropriate per the Manual of Style, it's unusual to see such solid consistency. Since I value consistency, I appreciated that rare situation. As of last month, only 2023 was changed via local consensus to be different than the rest. If this proposal passes for this article, it would join a tiny minority of articles that do not match the overall consistent style. I oppose for that reason. I would be fine with all generic year articles changing to consistently use a different style, and that is the proposal on the table at WP:VPR#Date format for year articles. Currently, it seems we're at the tail end of a pre-RfC discussion with plans to move forward with an RfC in the next week or so. I would much prefer to keep discussing the overarching change rather than have individual discussions at each year article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)